Summary

Republican senators are privately pushing to review Tulsi Gabbard’s FBI file amid concerns about her alignment with Russian interests following her nomination as Trump’s director of national intelligence.

Gabbard’s past support for Edward Snowden, who leaked U.S. state secrets, has drawn particular scrutiny, as has her history of echoing Russian talking points on Ukraine and Syria.

While GOP senators are publicly deferring to Trump’s pick, some, including Sens. Mike Rounds and Susan Collins, emphasize the importance of full background checks and hearings to address potential security risks.

  • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    You should look up exactly what was said, not what others insinuate.

    she started saying the US was behind terrorist attacks in Syria

    Well, the United States was propping up radical elements with Syria’s anti-Assad rebels. Fighters posed as Free Syrian Army “moderate rebels” to obtain U.S. weapons before promptly defecting to al-Nusra.

    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/id-take-tulsis-record-in-syria-over-the-cias/

    she accused the US of helping Ukraine develop bioweapons

    No, she said there are 25 to 30 American-funded biological laboratories in Ukraine. This is true, and public knowledge.

    She served in the Army and is now very anti war. War hawks on all sides have a vested interest in painting her as a Russian Asset.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      She very heavily implied it was for bioweapons. Why else would having laboratories be justification for war?

      She 100% supports letting Russia bulldoze Ukraine.

      She’s only anti-war where war is against Russia’s interests.

      • ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        15 hours ago

        like Trump and a lot of Pro MAGA people, their trick is to say things that aren’t explicit so they can lie later and say that’s not what they meant.

        Gabbard and her defenders will take each individual statement or act without context or predecessor and lie claiming that specific instance doesn’t prove anything. They’ll object to putting them all together to make the tapestry they represent.

        I agree that taken each on their own with no context and no history, nothing Gabbard has said or done constitutes evidence of compromise.

        But 20 years of her bullshit makes it absolutely clear that she’s either an asset or a straight up agent.